Zimbabwe: Human Rights

Lord Peston: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What assessment they have made of human rights concerns in Zimbabwe; and what action they are taking to address these.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Respect for human rights in Zimbabwe has improved since the low point of the Matabeleland atrocities in the 1980s. Zimbabwe has an active civil society and independent press (albeit harassed at times). However, there have been some serious lapses in the last two years which have coincided with the decline in the economic situation. The arrest and torture of the two Standard journalists in January shocked Zimbabweans as well as the international community.
	Freedom of assembly is enshrined in the Constitution. The government has previously used emergency powers to ban strike action, although a Parliamentary Legal Committee subsequently declared the ban to be unconstitutional.
	Zimbabwe is a party to all the international human rights conventions except the Convention against Torture. Torture, mainly beatings, is regularly used by the police (understaffed and lacking in training) to secure criminal convictions. There is an independent judiciary.
	Where there is evidence of human rights abuses, we raise our concerns with the Zimbabwe authorities. In addition, we actively promote freedom of expression by training journalists in the UK. Earlier this year we held a conference on media freedom in Harare. We support a number of NGOs working with the Zimbabwe police to enhance their respect for human rights. We also support good governance projects, and provide equipment and research material to NGOs working to improve people's access to law. We are encouraging the Zimbabweans to accede to the Convention against Torture.

Wassenaar Arrangement: 1999 Assessment

Lord Peston: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What were the results of the 1999 Assessment of the Wassenaar Arrangement; and what action they are taking to address these.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The 1999 Assessment of the operation of the Wassenaar Arrangement was concluded at the Arrangement's annual Plenary in Vienna on 1-3 December. The agreed public statement on the Plenary is available on the Arrangement's website (www.wassenaar.org).
	We welcome the decision by Participating States to expand the scope of their reporting on their transfers of certain types of conventional arms. As a result, arms pillar reporting requirements in the Wassenaar Arrangement will now for the first time extend beyond those in the UN Register of Conventional Arms. We also welcome the Plenary's decisions to structure the information exchange on the basis of global and regional views--as a result of a proposal by the UK--and to mandate the introduction of a secure electronic information system. These steps will greatly increase the value and accessibility of information exchanged by Participating States.
	Despite these positive developments, we regret that proposals to include other types of arms in the reporting requirements, including small arms and light weapons, warships of 150-750 metric tonnes displacement and missiles of less than 25km range, were not agreed due to opposition from a small minority of Participating States. We also regret that the Plenary did not agree that Participating States should provide details of decisions to refuse the transfer of military equipment, or details of end-users in all denial notifications for dual-use goods. We continue to believe that these improvements would significantly enhance the ability of Participating States to identify potentially destabilising transfers or accumulation of conventional arms and dual-use goods.
	Throughout the course of the 1999 Assessment, most of which was taken forward in the Arrangement's General Working Group under UK chairmanship, the UK has been at the forefront of efforts to increase the effectiveness of the Wassenaar Arrangement. In particular we co-sponsored and lobbied in support of proposals for a substantive increase in arms pillar transparency. We will continue this year to work for the further expansion of reporting requirements, to include in particular transfers of small arms and light weapons. We will also consider the scope for expanding our existing commitment to volunteer details of our transfers of certain types of conventional arms which are not covered by the mandatory reporting requirements.

Yugoslavia: Television Broadcast Equipment Export Controls

Lord Peston: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps have been taken to control the export of television broadcast equipment to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As of 5 January 2000, we have introduced an amendment to the Export of Goods (Control) Order to control the export to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) of television cameras, transmitters, codecs and transposers, satellite earth stations and up and down link equipment and transmission link and relay equipment. All applications to export these goods will be considered on a case by case basis.
	We have introduced the control because of our concerns that companies based in the UK may consider supplying this equipment to the state-run television company in the FRY. This company is a propaganda tool of the Milosevic regime and has been consistently used by the regime to defend and promote its repressive policies, most recently and noticeably during the Kosovo crisis.

Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What representations they have had from the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists about the initial consultation on proposals to replace the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960; what is their response; and what action they have taken or will be taking.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists is a member of the Reference Group which is assisting in the preparation of proposals to replace the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960. It has yet to comment on the first draft initial consultation document.

The European Union and UK Jobs

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 13 December (WA 10-11), how many of the "up to 900,000 jobs" that the European Commission estimated had been created across the European Union as a result of the European Single Market were in the United Kingdom; how the Commission reached this estimate; whether the Government are satisfied with the Commission's methodology; and, if so, why.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The European Commission report provides only aggregate data. It does not contain separate figures for the member states. An appendix to the report gives an overview of the Commission's methodology, which is based on the findings of a large number of studies and an extensive survey of business opinion. A copy of the report will be placed in the Library.

Political Staff, 10 Downing Street

Lord Chadlington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether political staff at 10 Downing Street, whose salaries are funded by the Labour Party, are covered by the same restrictions as civil servants regarding publication of memoirs; and whether they are required to sign the Official Secrets Act.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Staff employed in the political office at 10 Downing Street are not civil servants. Their terms and conditions of employment are a matter for the Labour Party.

Government Advertising

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they believe that their expenditure on advertising represents value for money for the United Kingdom taxpayer.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Yes. All government advertising is carried out in accordance with the Guidance on the Work of the Government Information Service. This requires it to be conducted in an economic and appropriate way, having regard to the need to be able to justify the costs as expenditure of public funds.

Political Honours Scrutiny Committee

Lord Patten: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will publish the terms of reference of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The terms of reference of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee are set out in the Order in Council of 20 May 1997, which I have placed in the Library of the House. Chapter 14 of the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, The Funding of Political Parties in the United Kingdom (Cm 4057-1), refers to the PHSC remit, drawing on evidence given to the Committee by the Cabinet Office Ceremonial Officer. That evidence is included in Volume II of the report.

The Prime Minister

Lord Patten: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will define the role and responsibilities of the office of Prime Minister.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The Prime Minister is the Head of Her Majesty's Government and Her principal adviser. He is the chairman of the Cabinet. Some specific functions have also been conferred upon him by statute--for example, by the Intelligence Services Act 1994. However, the office has evolved over many years, drawing on convention and usage, and it is not possible precisely to define its role and responsibilities.

The Prime Minister

Lord Patten: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the statute law and common law provisions that govern the office of Prime Minister.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The Prime Minister's office is subject to the rule of law like anyone else. Very few provisions govern the office of the Prime Minister specifically, although, for example, the office's salary is determined by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 (as amended). The Prime Minister also holds the offices of First Lord of the Treasury and Minister for the Civil Service.

The Prime Minister

Lord Patten: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to introduce a Prime Minister's Department.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The Government have no such plans.

10 Downing Street: Expenditure Scrutiny

Lord Patten: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What Parliamentary scrutiny there is of the operations of, and expenditure on, 10 Downing Street.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Parliamentary scrutiny of the operations of, and expenditure on, 10 Downing Street proceeds in the normal way through the voting of money by Parliament and the auditing of accounts by the National Audit Office. Members of either House are able, of course, to ask questions of the Government on these subjects.

Nuclear Safety: Departmental Responsibilities

Lord Dubs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in the light of the establishment of the devolved administration, they will clarify the departmental responsibilities for nuclear safety.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: Mr Stephen Byers, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, answers to Parliament on civil nuclear safety. Following devolution, his accountability for safety now extends to Scotland, as well as England and Wales. There are no licensed sites in Northern Ireland. Advice to Ministers on nuclear safety policy is given by the independent Health and Safety Commission, with day-to-day regulation at licensed nuclear sites a matter for the Health and Safety Executive through its Nuclear Installations Inspectorate.
	A summary of the responsibilities of Ministers and other organisations in this area has been placed in the Libraries of the House as well as on the DTI and HSE websites.

10 Downing Street: Constitutional Role

Lord Patten: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to introduce a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament to oversee the constitutional role of 10 Downing Street.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: The Government have no such plans.

House of Lords Membership

Earl Attlee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What consideration will be given to the age profile and size of the membership of the House of Lords in future years if Stage 2 of reform does not occur.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: The Government have every intention of implementing the second stage of reform. The Government have therefore not given any consideration to the age profile or the size of membership of the House of Lords if Stage 2 of reform does not occur.

House of Lords Membership

Earl Attlee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What they expect will be the average age and size of the membership of the House of Lords in 10 and 20 years' time if the age profile of future appointments does not change significantly and if Stage 2 of reform does not occur.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: It is not possible to estimate either the average age of the members of the House nor the size of the House in either 10 or 20 years' time. This is because it is not possible to predict the longevity of peers. Nor is it possible to foresee existing peers taking leave of absence on the grounds of frailty or illness or for any other reason.
	The Government are presently committed to achieving parity of numbers with the main Opposition Party and ensuring that, over time, party appointees as life peers more accurately reflect the proportion of votes cast at the previous general election.

Armed Forces and Homosexuals

Lord Dubs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have reached a conclusion about the implications for the Armed Forces of the European Court of Human Rights judgment on 27 September 1999.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: On 27 September 1999 the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in a case brought by four ex-Service personnel of the United Kingdom Armed Forces who had each been discharged on the grounds of their homosexuality. The Government accepted the Court's judgment and asked the Chief of Defence Staff to set in hand an urgent review of policy in this area. That review has now been completed and I am able to announce the outcome today.
	Our priority has been to preserve the operational effectiveness of our Armed Forces, to respect the rights of the individual, and to take full account of the Court ruling. The Chiefs of Staff have been fully involved in the process of developing a revised policy and have endorsed the outcome of the review.
	The review has judged that sexual orientation is essentially a private matter, but, because of the unique place of the Armed Forces in our society, standards of behaviour are rightly imposed on members of the Armed Forces that can be more demanding than those required by society at large.
	The MoD is therefore introducing a code of conduct to govern the attitude and approach to the personal relationships of those serving in the Armed Forces. This code will apply across the Forces, regardless of Service, rank, gender or sexual orientation. It will provide a clear framework within which people in the Services can live and work. Moreover, it will complement existing policies, such as zero tolerance towards harassment, discrimination and bullying.
	The code has been developed by Service experts who understand fully the operational needs and day-to-day practicalities of the Armed Forces. The code recognises explicitly that:
	"It is not practicable to list every type of conduct which might constitute social misbehaviour". Therefore, we have placed at the heart of the code what we call the Service Test, set out in the following terms:
	"Have the actions or behaviour of an individual adversely impacted or are they likely to impact on the efficiency or operational effectiveness of the Service?"
	In using the code, commanders will have to apply this Service Test through the exercise of their good judgment, discretion and common sense--the essence of command and the effective management of people. I am arranging for copies of the code to be placed in the Library of the House.
	As all personal behaviour will be regulated by the code of conduct with the object of maintaining the operational effectiveness of the three Services, there is no longer a reason to deny homosexuals the opportunity of a career in the Armed Forces. Accordingly, we have decided that it is right that the existing ban should be lifted. As no primary or secondary legislation is required, with effect from today, homosexuality will no longer be a bar to service in Britain's Armed Forces.
	I am confident that our Armed Forces will adapt to this change in the professional manner for which they are rightly held in the very highest regard.

Infant Formula Regulations: Contraventions

Baroness Goudie: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many complaints Trading Standards Officers have received concerning contraventions of the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 1995; and
	How many times manufacturers and distributors have been found to be in contravention of the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 1995; and
	How many times manufacturers or distributors of formula or follow-on milks have been fined under the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 1995.

Baroness Hayman: The Government collate statistics about food sampling undertaken by local authorities to meet the UK's obligations under the Council Directive on the Official Control of Foodstuffs. However, the information requested is not held centrally. Food law enforcement issues such as these remain the responsibility of local authorities.

Softwood Thinnings: Forest Enterprise Sales

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether Forest Enterprise has sold softwood thinnings during the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 financial years, at uneconomic prices, with consequent harm to other softwood owners, as a result of financial pressure from the Treasury; and, if so, whether they will stop such selling.

Baroness Hayman: The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its Chief Executive, Dr Bob McIntosh, to arrange for a reply to be given.
	Letter to Lord Hylton from the Chief Executive of Forest Enterprise, Mr B McIntosh dated 20 December 1999.
	I have been asked to reply to your question about the sale of softwood thinnings by Forest Enterprise.
	Most managed forests are thinned several times during their life. Thinning allows the remaining trees to grow larger, which means that they are more valuable. Thinning is therefore a standard part of good forest management.
	The income from the timber from thinning usually more than meets the cost of the thinning, although early thinnings sometimes cost more than the timber is worth. Nevertheless, early thinning, like weeding, is often a worthwhile investment as it improves the quality and value of the final forest. It is therefore impossible to say whether particular prices for thinnings are uneconomic as this depends on how much the thinnings benefit the remaining trees in the forest.
	Of course, Forest Enterprise aims to sell all its timber at market prices. However, the world market in timber effectively sets these prices. Prices for timber are much lower than they were two years ago because of, amongst other things, the strength of sterling, the weakness of the Swedish Krona, the increasing supply of timber from the Baltic States, and the downturn in the Asian economy. These prices may seem uneconomic to some forest owners, but the income from Forest Enterprise's thinning operations has more than met the costs. Within this, of course, some individual thinnings made a large profit, while others were an investment for the future.
	As regards the amount of timber sold each year, Forest Enterprise's Corporate Plan sets out the volume that we plan to sell each year, in line with our production forecasts. By offering this volume for sale every year, far from harming other softwood owners, we help to bring stability to the market, benefiting processors and growers alike.
	I hope that this has reassured you that our thinning operations are guided by long-term policies rather than short-term financial pressures.

Pet Travel Scheme

Lord Selsdon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What regulations will govern the Pet Travel Scheme (PETS); and when these regulations will come into force.

Baroness Hayman: The Pet Travel Pilot Scheme will start on 28 February. It is governed by the Pet Travel Scheme (Pilot Arrangements) (England) Order 1999, which comes into force on 17 January.

Agriculture Council, 14 and 15 December

Lord Peston: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 14 to 15 December.

Baroness Hayman: My right honourable friend the Minister represented the UK at the Agriculture Council meeting in Brussels on 14 December, accompanied by Ross Finnie, Minister for Rural Affairs in the Scottish Executive.
	The Council agreed to postpone for 12 months the introduction of compulsory labelling of beef in the light of evidence that the majority of member states would be unable to guarantee the integrity of such labels. Only France voted against. The precise legal form of the measure would depend upon the terms of the European Parliament's opinion on the Commission proposal, due to be delivered later in the week.
	The Council also decided by QM (Portugal voting against) to defer for six months implementation of a 1997 Decision on Community-wide measures controlling Specified Risk Material pending agreement on a new Decision.
	The Council agreed that adjustments to export refunds for processed agricultural products in order to meet budgetary and WTO limits should in future be governed by a strategic and targeted approach rather than via across-the-board cuts in refund rates. Officials were mandated to develop this strategy urgently with a view to adoption by March 2000 at the latest. My right honourable friend the Minister pointed out that, in the medium term, the solution was to bring down CAP support prices. Meanwhile, he endorsed the Council's proposed approach and expressed regret at the Commission's decisions to apply across-the-board refund cuts to date.
	Commissioner Byrne updated the Council on developments in response to last summer's dioxin crisis and on the Commission's plans in relation to food safety. Commissioner Fischler reported on his participation in the recent WTO Ministerial meeting in Seattle and on new Commission proposals for reform of the CAP cotton regime.

Fisheries Council, 16 and 17 December

Lord Hardy of Wath: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Brussels on 16 and 17 December.

Baroness Hayman: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr Morley, represented the United Kingdom at a meeting of the EU Fisheries Council in Brussels on 16-17 December, together with Mr John Home Robertson, Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs in the Scottish Executive, and Mrs Brid Rodgers, the Northern Ireland Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development, the first Minister for the newly devolved administration to attend an EU Council.
	The Council agreed by qualified majority, with France voting against, the total allowable catches (TACs) and quotas to apply in 2000 in Community waters and for Community vessels fishing in waters where catch limitations apply. Details of the final TACs are given in the following table.
	Following from the advice of fisheries scientists in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), the Commission had initially proposed substantial cuts in many TACs, reflecting the poor state of some stocks, reduced recruitment to them or the need to bring fishing effort back to levels which will help to sustain the future availability of stocks. Working on the basis of the scientific advice but using some of the precautionary management options identified by the scientists, we were able to secure smaller cuts than originally proposed for a number of TACs including nephrops in Area VII, anglers (monk fish) in West of Scotland, the North Sea and Area VII, and in some flat fish TACs. As a result at the end of the negotiations, the total UK quotas agreed were some 95,000 tonnes higher in cod equivalent tonnes than in the Commission proposals. This increase reduces the estimated loss of quota value to the industry in 2000 from £70 million to £40 million.
	Recognising the need to take steps to promote the recovery of the badly depleted cod stock in the Irish Sea, they were able to secure a Council and Commission commitment to introduce a recovery programme, after consultation with a new regional group made up of fishermen, scientists, and administrators involved in this fishery. The Commission will for the first time use the emergency conservation powers available to it to bring forward measures closing those areas in the Irish Sea in which spawning cod congregate from February to April 2000, as a way of protecting the stock. This commitment to an EU recovery programme, which followed intensive preparatory discussions between us, the Irish and the Commission, sets an important precedent for regional co-operation under the Common Fisheries Policy and the involvement of the industry in the management decisions on stock recovery.
	The Council also agreed on the closure from 1 January 2000 of the sandeel fishery off the Firth of Forth in the interests of protecting seabirds dependent on sandeels. This measure which is in line with scientific advice resulted from close co-operation between us, Denmark and the Commission.
	The Council further agreed not to reduce in 2000 the minimum landing size for plaice to 22 cm. As a result, we are pleased to confirm that this will remain at 27 cm.
	We successfully invoked the Hague Preference on all those stocks where it was in our overall interest to do so.
	The regulation on TACs and Quotas adopted by the Council incorporates for the first time in a single regulation the outcome of all the Community's international fisheries arrangements for 2000 between the Community and Norway, Faroes, Greenland, and Iceland, and under the North West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation and the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission.
	The Council also adopted unanimously, with Portugal abstaining, the regulation applying control measures for Community vessels in 2000 required under the North East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation arrangements.
	Commissioner Fischler confirmed that he would be meeting the Moroccan Minister of Fisheries on 20 December to initiate negotiations on a new fisheries agreement between the EU and Morocco. He also made brief presentations on a Commission report on regional meetings, which will become available and be considered from January 2000, and the Commission's proposals for further amendment of the Technical Conservation Regulation, which includes provision for a three-year closure of the Firth of Forth sandeel fishery.
	
		
			 Stock 1999 TAC (tonnes) 2000 TAC (tonnes) Gain/Loss % 
			 Sandeels IIa, IV 1,000,000 1,020,000 2 
			  
			 Herring I, II 1,300,000 1,252,000 -4 
			 Herring IVa, b 240,000 240,000 0 
			 Herring IVc, VIId 25,000 25,000 0 
			 Herring Vb, VIaN, VIb 68,000 42,000 -38 
			 Herring VIa (Clyde) 1,000 1,000 0 
			 Herring VIIa 6,600 5,350 -19 
			 Herring VIIe, f 1,000 1,000 0 
			 Herring VIIg-k 21,000 21,000 0 
			  
			 Herring IIa, IV Ind.  by-catch 30,000 36,000 20 
			  
			 Cod IIa, IV 132,400 81,000 -39 
			 Cod Vb, VI, XII, XIV 11,800 7,480 -37 
			 Cod VIIa 5,500 2,100 -62 
			 Cod VIIb-k, VIII, IX, X 19,000 16,000 -16 
			  
			 Megrim IIa, IV 3,000 3,000 0 
			 Megrim Vb, VI, XII, XIV 4,840 4,840 0 
			 Megrim VII 22,400 17,920 -20 
			  
			 Dab & Flounder IIa, IV 30,070 30,070 0 
			  
			 Anglers IIa, IV 22,070 17,660 -20 
			 Anglers Vb, VI, XII, XIV 8,600 8,000 -7 
			 Anglers VII 26,670 23,000 -14 
			  
			 Haddock IIa, IV 88,550 73,000 -18 
			 Haddock Vb, VI, XII, XIV 19,000 19,000 0 
			 Haddock VII, VIII, IX, X 22,000 13,200 -40 
			 Haddock VIIa 4,990 3,400 -32 
			  
			 Whiting IIa, IV 44,000 30,000 -32 
			 Whiting Vb, VI, XII, XIV 6,300 4,300 -32 
			 Whiting VIIa 4,400 2,640 -40 
			 Whiting VIIb-k 25,000 22,500 -10 
			  
			 Hake IIa, IV 1,930 1,480 -23 
			 Hake Vb, VI, VII, XII, XIV 30,910 23,600 -24 
			  
			 Lemon sole & witch IIa, IV 12,000 12,000 0 
			  
			 Blue whiting IIa NS 90,000 90,000 0 
			 Blue whiting Vb, VI, VII,  XII, XIV 407,000 407,000 0 
			 Blue whiting VIIIa, b, d, e 26,500 26,500 0 
			  
			 Nephrops IIa, IV 15,200 17,200 13 
			 Nephrops Vb, VI 12,600 12,600 0 
			 Nephrops VII 23,000 21,000 -9 
			  
			 Northern prawn IIa, IV 7,013 7,113 1 
			  
			 Plaice IIa, IV 102,000 97,000 -5 
			 Plaice Vb, VI, XII, XIV 2,400 2,400 0 
			 Plaice VIIa 2,400 2,400 0 
			 Plaice VIId, e 7,400 6,500 -12 
			 Plaice VIIf, g 900 800 -11 
			 Plaice VIIh, j, k 1,350 1,350 0 
			  
			 Pollack Vb, VI, XII, XIV 1,100 1,100 0 
			 Pollack VII 17,000 17,000 0 
			  
			 Saithe IIa, IIIb, c, d, IV 110,000 85,000 -23 
			 Saithe Vb, VI, XII, XIV 7,500 7,000 -7 
			 Saithe VII, VIII, IX, X 8,800 6,500 -26 
			  
			 Turbot & brill IIa, IV 9,000 9,000 0 
			  
			 Skates & rays IIa, IV 6,060 6,060 0 
			  
			 Mackerel IIa (EC), III, IV   
			 Mackerel IIa (non EC), Vb,  VI, VII, VIIIa, b, d, e,  XII, XIV 500,000 560,000 12 
			  
			 Sole II, IV 22,000 22,000 0 
			 Sole Vb, VI, XII, XIV 155 155 0 
			 Sole VIIa 900 1,080 20 
			 Sole VIId 4,700 4,100 -13 
			 Sole VIIe 700 660 -6 
			  
			 Sole VIIf, g 960 1,160 21 
			 Sole VIIh, j, k 720 720 0 
			  
			 Sprat IIa, IV 175,000 225,000 29 
			 Sprat VIId, e 12,000 12,000 0 
			  
			 Spurdog IIa, IV 8,870 9,470 7 
			  
			 Horse mackerel IIa, IV 60,000 51,000 -15 
			 Horse mackerel Vb, VI, VII,  VIIIa, b, d, e, XII, XIV 265,000 240,000 -9